Originally Posted by Lumiaman

They chose Windows for two reasons: differentiate, and make MS dependent on them

Originally Posted by Lumiaman

Its interesting, that pro-Symbian forces still thrive at Maemo. Its like the militias in Utah, Idaho and few other states, still glorifying the US past, and unaccepting of diversity and inevitability of change.....wake up guys, NOKIA was simply run over by superior forces. NOTHING would have changed the outcome, NOTHING. Blackberry is in the same boat, NOTHING, I mean NOTHING, can help blackberry either. They fell behind, they were content, fat, rich and non competitive. The now Jolla members were just a bunch of lazy coders who couldnt deliver.

Originally Posted by Lumiaman

Here are some numbers chump:


http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/...ps5f205518.jpg

Originally Posted by cheve

Well, let us see.

Your graph appears to be historical stock price trend between Sept 2003 to Sept 2013. If your point is about the up and down of the stock price; then sure Nokia current price is much lower than when it was peaking at $40 in mid 2007. So let me extend that thinking and may be I could conclude this: in 2007, Nokia was selling all this dump phones and the stock price was $40; in 2013, Nokia is selling all these wonderful WP phones and yet the stock price is under $10 -- what the f#$k, Wait a minute, I can get a bigger meal with $40 than $10...Oh my GOD, let us go back to sell more dump phones instead.

But... I guess that is NOT want you want to show or want people to conclude, isn't it?

So, just throwing a graph out without context and detail would cause a lot of confusion -- especially for simple guy like me.

You point was that nobody wanted Symbian, and the Nokia mobile was worthless before Mr. Elop's leadership. Your graph does NOT show that. If it were the case, shouldn't the graph show sharp decline of stock price toward of $0.0 by mid-2010 and then an upward trend once Mr. Elop has taken over.

We all know that by late 2011, under Elop's direction, Nokia was selling nothing but WP phones; and the overall stock price still trending downward; so using the same logic as you would have used(i.e. low stock price reflects the fact that less people wanting the product), then would it also means that Nobody wants WP either for all these years? But I have a warm and fuzzy feeling that you don't want me or other to conclude that either, isn't it?

As I noted before, it is a free country/or internet(as everyone says); you are entitled to what you want to write and say. But if you want to prove your points, I welcome you to put up the numbers. Again, please do not pound the table, I begin to feel sorry for the table now.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Lumiaman

Let me tell you what the graph shows. It shows that despite "great" Symbian sales, the most rapid decline in NOKIA stocks occurred under OPK, the king of Symbian. Not only that, but the decline continued to occur despite great symbian numbers that you posted, and that the slope of decline did not change much with Elop, which tells you that Elop did not worsen the decline of the stock, it was freefalling prior to him.

Originally Posted by cheve

Wow, I love these management excuse - too bad I couldn't try that with my line of work. I wonder what DID Mr. Elop tell the borard before He was named the CEO?. May be he said: (1) well guys, I am only one guy in this sinking vessel, so I don't have hope to turn this things around. I can try but good luck. OR (2). I am going to turn this thing around like no tomorrow -- just watch me. We will be swimming in cash, and be the KINGS of the world.

I think he mostly like said something like (2) and mostly saying something about he will fix it. So if the stock WERE really in freefall and his job were to fix it; then Mr. Elop FAILED - full stop.

By the way, you tried to change the channel again. The point was whether NOBODY wanted these "dump" Symbian phones in 2010 and whether the Nokia mobile was worthless in 2010 as you claimed. May be you have trouble keeping up the timeline...no?

By the way, if NOBODY wanted the Symbian dump phones, how come Nokia had NON-zero sale figures for phones between late 2009 to early 2011. What were they selling? I really want to know how they achieve a market stock in $10-15; since they were selling things that NOBODY wanted.

Cheers,